Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Pregnancy

Talk about every stage of pregnancy, from early symptoms to preparing for birth.

anybody else in 2 minds about swine flu jab?

172 replies

jlo1234 · 12/11/2009 10:23

i asked my doctor if he recommends me getting the swine flu jab, and he wasnt very convincing. he said its reccomended by the government but he doesnt know much about it himself so he would leave it up to the patient.

a friend said that she had had hers, shes a nurse who works in intensive care unit and said she thinks i should definatly have it because there has been a few pregnant women in there with swine flu and they are really ill with it.

the only thing that is holding me back is the fact that the vaccine is so new and hasnt been round for long enough for us to know if and what the long term side affects might be.

i feel like a guinnee pig and its putting me off, but then again i dont know what is the lesser of 2 evils, risk getting swine flu and putting both me and baby in danger or have the jab and risk side affects that havent been found yet.

i feel like im far enough along in my pregnancy for it to not cause much harm to the baby, (im nearly 33 weeks) but im just not sure what to do! it also confuses me that pregnant women cant have the seasonal flu vaccine but we can have the swine flu one?

has anybody actually had it, if so what made u decide u wanted it and did u regret it?
or has anybody else heard something to make them definatly not want it?

OP posts:
teletubby7777 · 13/11/2009 14:09

I am bilingual and can second Musekebba's very succint and accurate summary of the report.

Unfortunately, it isn't going to convince people who have already made up their minds based on shaky science that there is a direct causal relationship between GBS and vaccines.

CoteDAzur · 13/11/2009 14:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CoteDAzur · 13/11/2009 14:58

Here.

Beachcomber · 13/11/2009 15:15

Really Cote? Haven't looked at the paper today. I wonder if it is the same case.

Hey teletubby I'm bilingual too, like Cote I live in France.

I agree the article gives no details and then goes on to explain how GBS is related to viral infections in the general population. So really no one here can say with any authority if either of these cases are related to vaccines or not can they?

The only reason I think it would be reckless to rule these things out as coincidence is because doctors were told to be on the look out for cases of GBS following swine flu vaccination and because GBS has been associated with swine flu and other vaccines in the past. Would be a bit of a shame to miss cases through any knee jerk it can't possibly be the vaccine oh no because vaccines are not to be criticised ever, type reaction.

Anyway I actually popped in to post a link to Barbara Loe Fisher's words on this. Sensible lady! BTW she gets invited to meetings with the FDA and the CDC and all that lot before anybody tries to claim that she is a paranoid gibbering nut.

Midnightsun if you object to posts on this thread the done thing is to report them to MNHQ.

CoteDAzur · 13/11/2009 16:18

Hi Beachcomber - I don't know if you would find out local paper: Nice-Matin, Monaco-Matin, or Corse-Matin. All basically the same paper with a few local stories as the difference. I gave a link to the Corse-Matin story. I saw the same story in Monaco-Matin this morning.

It's probably the same case, since it talks about it happening on Tuesday:

"Un cas "probable" de syndrome Guillain-Barré, une maladie rare du système nerveux périphérique, a été signalé mardi après vaccination contre la grippe H1N1"

CoteDAzur · 13/11/2009 20:32

DH received our vaccination papers in the post. We are being called for Pandemrix. So is 4 yr old DD. It says here that the vaccine includes, among other additives, thimesoral. Eeek!

mommymeggie · 14/11/2009 00:20

Beachcomber- I salute you for your sharing of knowledge! We seem to be on the same wavelength and I enjoy reading what you have to say. I'm def calling it a day on these swine flu topics. A lot of people seem to be very stubborn when others question a motive. I'm def pro-vaccine but not when its being pushed so quickly in such a short time and not being explained clearly as to why. For those that consider us conspiracy theorists, what a joke! That just shows their scared b/c we are making a point out there. I am def no longer posting anymore on swine flu vaccine threads. I think if the people want to find out more about it, then they can figure it out as we have. Or they can just do what the romans do and get the damn shot without question.

Babyboom- Why namedrop? Do you really think you are making yourself look good? After your last few posts, it seems you've had no other argument but to drop other peoples credentials to make you appear more knowledgeable. I don't need to bring anyone into my argument to prove that I am smart. And just remember, its just their opinions that your quoting. And just a thought, coming from such a highly intellectual family.... nutritional science??

I'm out. Enjoy.

teletubby7777 · 14/11/2009 11:02

Mommymeggie

With an obesity and diabetes epidemic spreading around the world I think nutrition is a pretty important aspect of our daily lives -- both in developing and developed countries.

Not sure why you feel the need to put someone else down to make yourself feel better.

motherbeyond · 14/11/2009 11:16

my very good friend is a gp,her husband is a consulatant..he is working on icu at the moment with seriously ill prg women.
i told her last night i didn't think i'd have it.she asked why,and i said i was concerned re thalidomide etc she said all the constituents used in the jab have been used before and preg women have had the normal flu jab for years with no problems.

i asked if she would have it if she was preg,and she said "yup"...i really trust her,so i'm going to have it

babyboom1979 · 14/11/2009 11:22

Mommymeggie

You are right I shouldn't have name dropped -- it was poor form. I think it just stemmed from the overwhelming frustration of seeing people post poorly-sourced information on this website.

Incidentally not sure why you are so against the study of nutrition I am in medical school in the Division of Nutritional Sciences if that helps you to realise it's not some wishy washy study. Not that it matters i guess in your eyes I'm certainly not studying to be a surgeon!

And thanks teletubby for the support!

Beachcomber · 14/11/2009 18:10

Hey Cote, thanks, interesting. Good luck with your decision.

Thanks Mommymeggie for your kind words. I'm a bit of an old timer on vaccination threads and I have often said that I will keep away from them but I never really manage. See you on the next one!

I have a bit of a personal interest in safety issues because my DD had a serious vaccine reaction 6 years ago (to a vaccine which has since been withdrawn) and I'm and and that nothing has changed since then in terms of post marketing monitoring and pre marketing safety trials. Indeed things seem to have got worse which is a bit concerning.

Everybody else good luck with your decisions.

sellotapeepatolles · 14/11/2009 18:33

"Would be a bit of a shame to miss cases through any knee jerk it can't possibly be the vaccine oh no because vaccines are not to be criticised ever, type reaction."

That's what makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist - characterising people who are saying that this case of GBS could just be coincidence as doing so "because vaccines are not to be criticised ever" when really all they're saying is that it's not sensible to assume it's the vaccine first without considering other possibilities.

It's not a secret that vaccines can occasionally have bad effects and it puts people with a family history of that in a very difficult position when it comes to deciding whether or not to have them.

Jumping straight to vaccines as the cause of anything that follows them using "A follows B, A must be caused by B" logic is bad science though, and that seems to be exactly what you're doing here with respect to the GBS following the SF jab.

Personally what I'm interested in is knowing, eventually, what the percentage risks of certain side effects will be. Then the thing to do will be to compare them with the risks of catching the disease etc. There's no such thing as an easy totally risk-free choice here. And the unfortunate thing here is that none of us have got the luxury of time to wait for oodles of reassuring data to be gathered on other guinea pigs people before we make our own decision.

CoteDAzur · 14/11/2009 19:57

Interesting article here for French speakers.

A friend and her 4 year old have SF at the moment. She says it's not fun but not so terrible.

Beachcomber · 14/11/2009 20:59

Sellotapeepatolles GBS has a long and well documented history of being an adverse reaction to vaccines. It is listed on some manufacturer's package inserts as such. In other words it is an official and accepted, although fortunately uncommom, side effect of vaccination.

Doctors have been told by DoH top dogs to be be on the look out for GBS cases following vaccination with H1N1 as for some reason flu vaccines seem to provoke GBS in suseptible populations (as can the virus itself).

It is therefore not unreasonable to come to the conclusion that declaring cases of GBS following H1N1 vaccination as 'coincidences' is a little lacking in scientific curiousity and a rather blinkered view.

And you know what Sellotapeepatolles, I do voluntary work for a support group for families of vaccine damaged children and most of them have been told that what happened to them was a coincidence (some of them have GBS). When my daughter became unresponsive in the minutes following vaccination and remained that way for 6 hours I was told that it was nothing to do with the vaccines she had just received.

You know, the general medical rule is that if something happens to a patient after a medical intervention then the medical intervention is suspect number 1 until proven otherwise. This is called being ethical. Vaccines however seem to have a rulebook all of their own. It is never the vaccine unless proven 100% to be so which is asking the scientifically impossible.

We all accept that no drug is 100% safe and that adverse events do happen. I can guarantee you though that if the drug that happens to damage your loved one is a vaccine you will have a major fight on your hands to get an official acknowledgment that that is what happened even if the person goes into heart failure with the needle still stuck in their body.

I didn't have strong feelings about vaccination either way until I had personal experience of both the damage that vaccines can do, (of course to an unlucky minority for most vaccines) and worse, the dismissiveness and contempt of the medical community when a parent has the cheek to point out that their child reacted badly.

Of course vaccines cannot be safe for all of the people all of the time, that goes without saying. However in saying that, it is only honest, ethical and logical to also state that for some people things do go wrong. It is only moral to therefore say that those poor people should be listened to, respected, compensated, helped, treated and remembered when it comes to deciding vaccination policy.

If that makes me a 'conpircacy theorist' then frankly I despair for the critical thinking abilities,ethics and intellectual curiosity of those who bandy such terms about so easily.

I once heard a vaccination bigwig stating that 'you can't make an omlete without breaking any eggs'. Kinda stuck in my throat because my child is one of those broken eggs. What happened to her could have been avoided had a rudimentary screening process (which parents have been asking for for decades been in place). We're still asking and we're still being called conspiracy theorists for doing so.

Other than that please refer to previous post about the lazy, sloppy, sensationalistic, rude and offensive use of this meaningless term which has no place in honest debate by informed people.

CoteDAzur · 14/11/2009 21:47

The question is whether those few people who develop GBS after SF vaccine would develop GBS if they had SF itself. Or if they would one day have GBS even if they didn't have SF or SF vaccine.

sellotapeepatolles · 14/11/2009 23:40

I wouldn't declare them all as coincidences but I wouldn't declare that they couldn't ever be coincidences, which is what you seem to be saying when you made your sarcastic comment to Musukebba after she said that that one particular case of GBS was unlikely to be caused by vaccination because it happened too soon. That rather implies that you think vaccination should always be blamed even when it's relatively unlikely, or that you expect us to believe that she's lying about it being unlikely in order to defend vaccines from criticism. Isn't it possible that this one case could be coincidence - without it saying anything about all the others?

That's what seems a bit 'conspiracy theorist' - not the being concerned about vaccines, even very concerned or angry about inadequate screening, all of which is completely understandable and important, but the jumping straight to accusing people of having agendas rather than accepting that even one case might only be coincidence.

Beachcomber · 15/11/2009 09:48

Musukebba and I have discussed vaccines before. I don't think she has an agenda at all but I know that she tends towards thinking vaccines are a lot safer than I tend to think.

If you like I find it very concerning that there is a tendancy to declare events which happen after vaccination as coincidences. I find such an attitude unethical, very concerning and unscientific.

As I say with drugs in general there is a prudent tendancy to assume that events which are known to be caused by those drugs are, well, caused by those drugs. If other information is found which shows that not to be the case, all well and good.

Musukebba thinks this case is a coincidence beause GBS takes a while to develop. I disagree, GBS cases vary enormously from one person to another and indeed there are differnt types of GBS, the onset of symptoms can be very quick.

With vaccines the prevailing attitude is that it is probably not the vaccine which caused the event. It is extremely hard, if not impossible, to scientifically prove that it was the vaccine.

Personally when it comes to safety of people with the use of strong drugs with limited safety information in wider populations, I think it is better to err on the side of caution.

If this boy had developed GBS after catching swine flu there wouldn't be many people who would declare that a coincidence.

When people devleop bad headaches after H1N1 vaccination it is accepted that it is probably the vaccine as headaches are a known side effect. GBS is a known side effect too so what's the problem in saying that it is sensible until proven otherwise that it is probably the vaccine which caused it?

Headache, no problem. GBS, get outta here you conspiracy theorists.

CoteDAzur · 15/11/2009 10:04

GBS is a recognized side effect of SF vaccine, so why are we discussing whether Beachcomber is being a "conspiracy theorist" for drawing attention to the case of GBS that followed SF vaccination in France?

In fact, on the Pandemix info sheet that was sent to me along with my invitation to SF vaccination, it lists "very rarely": "Troubles neurologiques tels que encephalomyelite (inflammation du systeme nerveux central), nevrite (inflammation des nerfs), et un type de paralysie connue sous le nom de Syndrome de Guillain-Barre."

So can we all accept that Beachcomber is not a conspiracy theorist and move on?

CoteDAzur · 15/11/2009 10:04

GBS is a recognized side effect of SF vaccine, so why are we discussing whether Beachcomber is being a "conspiracy theorist" for drawing attention to the case of GBS that followed SF vaccination in France?

In fact, on the Pandemix info sheet that was sent to me along with my invitation to SF vaccination, it lists "very rarely": "Troubles neurologiques tels que encephalomyelite (inflammation du systeme nerveux central), nevrite (inflammation des nerfs), et un type de paralysie connue sous le nom de Syndrome de Guillain-Barre."

So can we all accept that Beachcomber is not a conspiracy theorist and move on?

teletubby7777 · 15/11/2009 11:51

Every piece of literature I have read on GBS has said that it MAY be a side effect of the vaccine with an incidence of 1 per million vaccinations but that this link has never been fully proven. In a natural setting GBS will infect between 1-2 people per 100,000 cases of infection (such as the flu).

Because the flu is a more potent cause of this syndrome there is a line of thinking that actually vaccinating people will lower the yearly incidence of this autoimmune disorder.

I am in full agreement with Beachcomber that we need to be vigilant about any possible side effects. However, I think that it goes without saying that some people will react badly to the vaccine, as happens with a myriad of otherwise "safe medications". Has anyone ever read the possible side effects of aspirin?!

Several years ago I had a terrible allergic reaction to penicillin which has definitely changed the way I think about taking medications lightly, and I can understand why Beachcomber's experience with her daughter has made her doubly cautious and wary of vaccines in general. I strongly disagree with linking them with so many other illnesses but it has certainly spurred on a lively debate.

teletubby7777 · 15/11/2009 14:12

I meant to say "GBS will develop in between 1-2 people per 100,000 cases of infection "

lumpasmelly · 15/11/2009 15:33

Surely the point of this whole debate is not to endlessly wax on about the extremely uncommon side effects that can happen after undertaking a medical procedure. All medical procedures have risk, hence the reason we are all asked to sign disclaimers before we have them recognising the fact that there are risks and we might indeed be unlucky.

Epidurals carry the risk of paralysis, but we would all be horrified if a thread about the pros/cons of having one became bogged down with with this particular fact....by the same token, you take a risk every day when you get in a car (a much higher risk than that posed by most medical procedures).....

It upsets me that so much weight has been put upon the "possible" side effects of this swine flu vaccine, and the tone of many of the posts IS alarmist in the sense that they are implying that women are being irresponsible by taking it in light of these potential side effects. I just don't see how this is helping anyone. Yes - if I was unlucky enough to become one of those statistics, I would be devastated and very angry and probably looking to blame the medical establishment, but it doesn't mean that I would shun modern medicine for the remainder of my life. I would also be pretty angry and upset if I caught swine flu and lost my baby, or needed a lung transplant, especially if I thought that I could have prevented it by taking a vaccine.

BTW - to draw a parallel, I would never have a blood tranfusion, but only because my best friend contracted hep c from getting one back in the late eighties....this fear of blood tranfusions is COMPLETELY irrational and i accept that...it is one of my foibles, and led me to spending 2 months in bed after a PPH with DS2 waiting for my blood count to increase (cost me a fortune in extra help...) but I would never dream of going onto a MN thread after someone had had a blood tranfusion and start referencing articles about CJD and Hep C and the unmentionable horrors that could be discovered at some point in the future, as this would not be helpful to anyone.......

CoteDAzur · 15/11/2009 18:39

Actually, the point of this thread IS to talk about the vaccine's side effects. Have you read the thread title? If OP isn't worried about side effects, why would she be "in two minds"? In fact, she clearly says:

"the vaccine is so new and hasnt been round for long enough for us to know if and what the long term side affects might be"

CoteDAzur · 15/11/2009 18:53

teletubby - re "Every piece of literature I have read on GBS has said that it MAY be a side effect of the vaccine"

Excuse my curiousity, but just how much "literature" have you read on GBS? Are we talking about some web surfing in the last few weeks, or do you have a doctorate on the subject?

I'm wondering, because you seem to think you know better than the French government, who has sent out this leaflet.

Actually, it says it is a "very rare" side effect of not only SF vaccine but seasonal flu vaccines:

"Les effets indesirables cites ci-dessous sont survenus dans es jours ou semaines suivant la vaccination annuelle habituelle avec les vaccins grippaux saisonniers. Ces effets indesirables sont suceptibles de survenir avec Pandemrix."

Then goes on to list infrequent, rare, and very rare side effects, the last of which includes the sentence I quoted earlier:

"Troubles neurologiques tels que encephalomyelite (inflammation du systeme nerveux central), nevrite (inflammation des nerfs), et un type de paralysie connue sous le nom de Syndrome de Guillain-Barre."

And re "Because the flu is a more potent cause of this syndrome there is a line of thinking that actually vaccinating people will lower the yearly incidence of this autoimmune disorder"

That is a very dumb "line of thinking" for the simple reason that the entire population does not catch the flu every year, not even necessarily every fifth year, and it is nonsense to unnecessarily expose people who are prone to get GBS following flu/vaccine.

lumpasmelly · 15/11/2009 19:32

With all due respect Cote D'Azure, you are not a scientist. I have an undergraduate degree AND a PhD in neuropsychology and spent 8 years of my life researching neural cell migration during the 2nd trimester of pregnancy, and the impact of viral infection on the subsequent development of neural disorders such as depression and schizophrenia (in the fetus) .....DESPITE this (and believe me, I learned a huge amount during this period and time and could bore you all to tears with some of the studies I came across) I would NEVER say this qualifies me as an expert on all neural disorders......the amount of research that is being done in these fields is HUGE and for every theory or paper published, there are usually fifty more with conflicting of differing points of view. When the majority of the scientific community converge on a theory that becomes widely accepted, then this is quite a big deal...that is why organisations such as the WHO are so important....

Consequently, I find it quite amusing (and also a bit insulting) to hear some of the stuff that is being "cited" in this thread by individuals who seem to think that they are experts.....

This thread may be about the pros and cons of taking the vaccine, but surely pretending to be an expert in immunology, neurology and vaccine development is not playing fair!!!